J
Joe_Sarto
Guest
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I don’t know why you guys insist on continuing this thread. But I shall deal with this:
Mike << Where’s the link between the Dalanistes and the Rodhocetus? Your chart is incomplete. >>
Don’t need that, what we have to determine is why a creature like Ambulocetus Natans (the “walking whale that swims”) is an early whale. That would seal the case for land mammal to whale evolution. Here is a picture
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ambulocetus.jpg
And here is why Ambulocetus is considered an early whale:
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale? A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in water as well as on land? A: Its long body is shaped rather like an otter, with a broad flattened tail and paddle-like hands and feet. The back legs are very short and strong and would have been powerful in the water, but clumsy on land. All these features suggest that it was a good swimmer, and easily capable of moving on land as well.
Q: How do we know how Ambulocetus swam? A: The long body, powerful hind legs, and flattened tail all suggest that Ambulocetus swam a bit like a modern otter. Certainly (like all mammals) its spine would have flexed up and down, not side to side like a fish or a crocodile. Its tail and paddle-like back feet would have helped push it through the water.
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in fresh as well as salt water? A: The fossils so far have all been found in marine sediments, initially suggesting that these were seashore animals. However, there is another clue from an unlikely-sounding source – their teeth. Paleontologists have made a chemical analysis of Ambulocetus’ teeth, and this tells a different story. The teeth were formed early on in the animals’ lives, and their chemical composition shows that at that time the animals were in rivers or estuaries, rather than the sea. There are two possible explanations for this strange result. Maybe Ambulocetus went upstream to give birth in fresh water, and then spent its adult life around the seashore. Another alternative is that, rather like modern sea cows, they move freely between fresh water and seawater. Only a few fossils have so far been found, so perhaps we will find some in river deposits soon.
Sources: see both P.D. Gingerich and J.G.M. Thewissen on the evolution of whales
Case closed. I’ve been through Ambulocetus in an earlier thread proving it is a legitimate whale fossil to someone who suggested it was “fake.” Don’t make me go through that again.
BTW, you don’t have to disbelieve Genesis 1:21 when it says “And God created the great whales” you only have to add to this the 21st century knowledge that God created the great whales by evolution, and it took several million years, not one day.
Phil P
Mike << Where’s the link between the Dalanistes and the Rodhocetus? Your chart is incomplete. >>
Don’t need that, what we have to determine is why a creature like Ambulocetus Natans (the “walking whale that swims”) is an early whale. That would seal the case for land mammal to whale evolution. Here is a picture
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ambulocetus.jpg
And here is why Ambulocetus is considered an early whale:
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale? A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in water as well as on land? A: Its long body is shaped rather like an otter, with a broad flattened tail and paddle-like hands and feet. The back legs are very short and strong and would have been powerful in the water, but clumsy on land. All these features suggest that it was a good swimmer, and easily capable of moving on land as well.
Q: How do we know how Ambulocetus swam? A: The long body, powerful hind legs, and flattened tail all suggest that Ambulocetus swam a bit like a modern otter. Certainly (like all mammals) its spine would have flexed up and down, not side to side like a fish or a crocodile. Its tail and paddle-like back feet would have helped push it through the water.
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus lived in fresh as well as salt water? A: The fossils so far have all been found in marine sediments, initially suggesting that these were seashore animals. However, there is another clue from an unlikely-sounding source – their teeth. Paleontologists have made a chemical analysis of Ambulocetus’ teeth, and this tells a different story. The teeth were formed early on in the animals’ lives, and their chemical composition shows that at that time the animals were in rivers or estuaries, rather than the sea. There are two possible explanations for this strange result. Maybe Ambulocetus went upstream to give birth in fresh water, and then spent its adult life around the seashore. Another alternative is that, rather like modern sea cows, they move freely between fresh water and seawater. Only a few fossils have so far been found, so perhaps we will find some in river deposits soon.
Sources: see both P.D. Gingerich and J.G.M. Thewissen on the evolution of whales
Case closed. I’ve been through Ambulocetus in an earlier thread proving it is a legitimate whale fossil to someone who suggested it was “fake.” Don’t make me go through that again.
BTW, you don’t have to disbelieve Genesis 1:21 when it says “And God created the great whales” you only have to add to this the 21st century knowledge that God created the great whales by evolution, and it took several million years, not one day.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
TNT << Not only did Adam and Eve evolve sometime between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, but they conveniently both evolved at the same time and in the EXACT same place. >>
The “conveniently” part is helped by the fact that God was involved: God planned the process, God oversaw the process, and God guided the evolution. That is my position, that is Fr. Groeschel’s position, that is Pope Benedict’s XVI position:
“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”
“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”
"IN THE BEGINNING…" : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995)
Phil P
The “conveniently” part is helped by the fact that God was involved: God planned the process, God oversaw the process, and God guided the evolution. That is my position, that is Fr. Groeschel’s position, that is Pope Benedict’s XVI position:
“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”
“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”
"IN THE BEGINNING…" : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995)
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
you think so? I find it elegant in its simplicity
huh?
(A) “nature” doesn’t “formulate” anything
(b) who said anything about the “best” response? All the theory suggests is a “better” one. “Better” being indicated in a higher reproductive success rate
As was probably mentioned before the process is deterministic not random
besides “looking around” the world hardly seems like vigorous analytical method
Hardly, while 4 billions years of adaptations might look pretty good in many instances, there are species which seem to have gone down very precarious paths. Take the panda for example a carnivore that has turned vegetarian and not only has turned vegetarian but relied on one plant specie! Surely a dead end if I ever saw one. There are numerous other less than perfect adaptations our eyes for example
The glib answer is that if they didn’t then they wouldn’t be birds
The better answer is that evolution is not the place to ask “why”…it can only tell us “how” for “why” you may want to speak to the chaplain.
it is deterministic not random
You’re kidding me right?
As discussed above with the falsification issue, the theory rests on the fact of common decent. Birds (and all land vertebrates) are evolved from tetrapods which had a laterally symmetrical/ four limbed body. All land vertebrates must follow that pattern. Something is not suddenly going to have limbs on one side of its body.
Cute, but that 64 mustang probably had a carburetor, a distributor, a coil, and rocker arms while I imagine the 05 one has electronic ignition, fuel injection, and OHC. These are completely different in design and function. To argue that the car evolved, the 05 would have to related structures and you would predict that somewhere around 1982 there was a mustang that had features of both. You would even expect that the 64 might have a vestigial starter crank inherited from its Model-T ancestors.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Continued
mike182d:
mike182d:
Similarly common origin predated Darwin and the discovery of DNA did not overturn the theory merely refined it
mike182d:
mike182d:
They are caused by a number of facotrs, ionizing radiation, certian chemicals, palin old copying error.
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
so when it comes to describing the natural world I’ll stick to what my God given brains tell me
well geology isn’t biology so “ancestry” probably isn’t the right word but yes the Earth and Moon have a common origin. Are you suggesting that they don’t?
Why yes they are. And herein lies an important point. The discovery of subatomic particles, while removing the distinction of atoms being the most basic building blocks, did not overturn anything else in molecular theory it just added to what was there. We had a already constructed the periodic table and had an extensive empirical understanding of chemistry even without knowledge of electrons or valence states.
Similarly common origin predated Darwin and the discovery of DNA did not overturn the theory merely refined it
not if you’re looking for oil
I’m still not sure why you keep asking about mutations? Evolution doesn’t cause mutations.
They are caused by a number of facotrs, ionizing radiation, certian chemicals, palin old copying error.
Well there is. In all charity, if you are going to critique evolution it might be a good idea to understand it.
yeah…what other criteria could you possibly use?
Many many times less than have gone extinct through natural causes. But why would the cause matter?
As explained before evolution doesn’t have a rate or direction so there is no prediction of “future evolution of animals”
that wouldn’t be a science and is kinda a non sequitur to boot
yes there is, extinction
evolution is about populations not individuals
perhaps, but it would be blasphemous to put Christ under a microscope
so when it comes to describing the natural world I’ll stick to what my God given brains tell me
M
mike182d
Guest
Because the theory of evolution is the scientific equivilent of “Global Warming.”
Yes, you do. Otherwise, the theory is insufficient in explaining the incredible leap.
And why must one accept this morphological lineage over a molecular one? If evolution were correct, would not the morphological and molecular phylogenies be identicle? But alas, contradictions…
So, you actually witnessed the transition, then?Case closed. I’ve been through Ambulocetus in an earlier thread proving it is a legitimate whale fossil to someone who suggested it was “fake.” Don’t make me go through that again.
I’ll add this to my list once I cross out the 20th Century rewrite that “God created the atom as the smallest particle from which all things are made” and in its place write “God created quarks and quasars, which form atoms, which are the smallest particles.”
The joy of being a Catholic is that I don’t have to erase beliefs of the past in favor of newer, updated beliefs.
T
TNT
Guest
PHIL:
We DO appreciate you and your patience with us knuckleheads. We also admire your defense of the Faith (or your Faith).
If I were you I would have dropped a few explatives around post #40 and exited…
If evolution turns out to be true in some obvious way to the fundies, then I apologize for the sarcastic humor.
However I reserve the right to groan over evolution and post my thoughts especially on rainy cold days when Mom won’t let me out to ride my plythocharious, and I’m bored out of my mind.
We DO appreciate you and your patience with us knuckleheads. We also admire your defense of the Faith (or your Faith).
If I were you I would have dropped a few explatives around post #40 and exited…
If evolution turns out to be true in some obvious way to the fundies, then I apologize for the sarcastic humor.
However I reserve the right to groan over evolution and post my thoughts especially on rainy cold days when Mom won’t let me out to ride my plythocharious, and I’m bored out of my mind.
T
TNT
Guest
Well, Steve, some good came out of this after all.
I will no longer call my wife’s ideas STUPID. From now on they will be “elegant in their simplicity”.
This will hopefully lead to
M
mike182d
Guest
To include “possessing a higher reproductive success rate” as a foundational premise of evolution is just a clearer example of how the theory is completely retrospective and has no practical application for future predictions as there is no possible way to determine how successful one organism’s reproduction is going to be over another’s. Its more like evolutionists sitting on the sidelines, watching life happen, and then saying “Of course it would happen that way!”
Furthermore, suppose there was a primitive mammal existent during the end of the Cretaceous period that evolved to possess a brain capable of super-intelligent thought, but, because of an asteroid - and this is purely hypothetical mind you - it happened to be wiped out with the dinosaurs by a freak accident while its other, “dumber” bretheren survived. Is the fact that the dumber mammals survived proof that this state was qualitatively *better *than the super-intelligent one? Evolutionists have absolutely no idea why certain organisms survived over others and assume that because certain ones *did *survive, that they are obviously better. Just the mere terminology of “better” demands a high degree of subjectivity on the observers part, and that’s not scientific.
Once again, the theory of evolution states that: “It was better for things to happen this way because they happened this way!”
Determined by…? The DNA? “Nature?”
In one post you mananged to completely contradict yourself. First, evolution is observed by the reproductive success rate over its departed counterparts, but despite the panda’s reproductive success rate for over 4 billions years, it exists as a failure?
Furthemore, you say: “surely a dead end if I ever saw one.” That’s really the crux against evolution. There is absolutely no reason to assume that being a carnivore turned vegetarian and dependent upon one plant is any worse than an carnivore able to eat whatever it wants whenever it wants because we have no idea what is going to happen in the future. Mankind could wipe itself out in the next 1000 years through war and the panda could still live on. Was the panda, then, better adapted or evolved than men? There are events in life that no one in their right mind can predict that are more powerful than life’s ability to adapt and that is why evolution is purely a retroactive study. Until it can predict every change in the cosmos it can never determine which species is better suited for what and which animals are going to survive. It can only look backwards and tell a fascinating story.
…thereby rendering speciation as entirely arbitrary and meaningless as every organism existent is merely a variation of the same thing.
[qoute]The better answer is that evolution is not the place to ask “why”…it can only tell us “how” for “why” you may want to speak to the chaplain.
So, chemists don’t ask “why” molecules move the way they do?
Once again evidence that no two evolutionists agree
Why must all land vertebrates follow that pattern? Why is there only one phylogeny and not many? Why *couldn’t *there be more than one? Evolutionists have no idea.
Once again, evolution holds that: “things are the way they are because they are the way they are…”
So, you’re saying there’s not one single thing that all Mustangs possess in common, placing them within the same lineage?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
mike << Because the theory of evolution is the scientific equivilent of “Global Warming.” >>
You can’t be serious. OK I’ll pick up one book you think destroys evolution. What would you recommend?
I’ve already recommended thousands of books and millions of links in here. This discussion gets tiresome. You don’t want to accept evolution, fine don’t accept it. Your not accepting evolution doesn’t effect your faith, and it doesn’t effect my faith.
I’ve cleaned up my article a little and updated the sources:
Evidence for Evolution
One thing on whale evolution, that was a famous gap where the transitionals were predicted to exist, and those predictions came true when the transitionals were found and the gaps were filled in the 1980s and 90s by Gingerich and Thewissen. Their articles are available in Science and Nature and others if you are interested. But you aren’t really interested.
Phil P
You can’t be serious. OK I’ll pick up one book you think destroys evolution. What would you recommend?
I’ve already recommended thousands of books and millions of links in here. This discussion gets tiresome. You don’t want to accept evolution, fine don’t accept it. Your not accepting evolution doesn’t effect your faith, and it doesn’t effect my faith.
I’ve cleaned up my article a little and updated the sources:
Evidence for Evolution
One thing on whale evolution, that was a famous gap where the transitionals were predicted to exist, and those predictions came true when the transitionals were found and the gaps were filled in the 1980s and 90s by Gingerich and Thewissen. Their articles are available in Science and Nature and others if you are interested. But you aren’t really interested.
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
but it’s all in good fun
how so?
It is the very heart of the theory…isolated populations diverge
all I’m saying is that isolated populations diverge.
Oh, I see your mistake here.
Amoeba is a genus not a specie (although strain might be more accurate for protozoa)
that fact that there are amoeba world wide is no different than the fact that there are different types of oak trees all over
you really ought to read up on these things before you post them. The Amoeboids come in many varieties, shapes, & sizes as do the rest of the Sarcodinids as would be expected from a successful, well distributed phylum. no surprise, no big mystery
and as for that micro/macro stuff; as I’ve said before, you can’t just be a little bit evolved, if things change then they change…you can’t have it both ways
you’re just pulling my leg right?
L
LSK
Guest
Steve, I went to a lot of fraternity parties when I was at Berkeley…are you sure you can’t be ‘just a little bit evolved’?
And yes, I am pulling your leg…
And yes, I am pulling your leg…
M
mike182d
Guest
Believing that the human person exists in the form it does because of random mutations and “copying errors” within the genetic code doesn’t present a problem, theologically? You think that God intervened, then, just this once, to create man, but then left everything else up to a process He set in motion? What is your evidence for that? Are human beings still affected by evolution? If so, will the new species we evolve into possess the same soul? Will it be different? Will it possess a soul at all? Will there be “partial” human souls existent in transitionary homo sapiens into this new species? “God uses evolution…” isn’t as simple as it sounds.
We are co-creators with God. When I co-signed a mortgage with my bride, I did not just sign to my part of the house and she signed to her part of the house, we signed on everything *together. *Likewise, we do not create the body and God creates the soul, we both create the whole of a human person at the moment of conception together, body and soul. Evolution denies this. Genetic mutations occur within the replication process at the moment of conception, and therefore under the evolutionary model, human beings are *not *co-creators with God. God is a co-creator with a naturalistic process He created - He infuses a soul into the body shaped by evolution.
It is insufficient to believe that God makes an exception just for us, but lets the rest of creation continue on its merry way as guided by evolution. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary besides faith - which is the very thing you ridicule me for regarding the rest of creation - and there is absolutely no reason to assume that if God could create in this fashion for human beings that He could not do likewise with the rest of creation and what we perceive as “evolution” is just the order of God’s creative hand as its moves the whole of creation through time.
L
LSK
Guest
THANK heavens…a voice of reason…
P
PhilVaz
Guest
mike << Likewise, we do not create the body and God creates the soul, we both create the whole of a human person at the moment of conception together, body and soul. Evolution denies this. >>
Evolution denies what? Souls? Evolution doesn’t speak to souls. Evolution does speak to physical bodies. God would intervene to infuse the soul, whether at conception, or at the first human parents (Adam/Eve). God intervening is not a matter of science but is a matter of faith.
Your questions and objections are not comprehensible to me. They seem to be the ravings of a person who will not accept evolution no matter the evidence. Fine don’t accept evolution, you don’t have to.
Phil P
Evolution denies what? Souls? Evolution doesn’t speak to souls. Evolution does speak to physical bodies. God would intervene to infuse the soul, whether at conception, or at the first human parents (Adam/Eve). God intervening is not a matter of science but is a matter of faith.
Your questions and objections are not comprehensible to me. They seem to be the ravings of a person who will not accept evolution no matter the evidence. Fine don’t accept evolution, you don’t have to.
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
I’m not going to respect myself in the morning for this but here goes…
mike182d:
mike182d:
That is what the theory is. Why is that a problem?
mike182d:
Evolution makes no such judgment and I’m not quite sure why you take exception to it
It’s sort of like blaming the lawnmower for not trimming the hedges
mike182d:
Like the old joke goes; “I don’t have to out run the Tiger. I just have to out run you.”
mike182d:
It would just say that’s the way it happened.
Science isn’t philosophy or theology. It isn’t looking for deeper meaning. It is just trying to describe what happened. If that leaves you cold and empty fine; that’s why we have priests and poets.
Don’t blame evolution for sticking to its P&Qs
mike182d:
Once again in all charity, if you don’t know the difference between deterministic and random processes then you really shouldn’t be going on and on about “random” this and “random” that
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
Remember, that there is no one definition as to better adapted. That is why species split. Different populations diverge differently. And conditions constantly change so what is “better” constantly changes.
Future predictions of evolution? That is b-movie sci-fi stuff. General, obvious, predictions such as species with greater distributions or higher reproductive rates are more likely to survive but beyond that …God only knows
well yeah…the theory is about how contemporary species arose not where they are going.
That is what the theory is. Why is that a problem?
You’re on about that “better” or “worse” stuff again
Evolution makes no such judgment and I’m not quite sure why you take exception to it
It’s sort of like blaming the lawnmower for not trimming the hedges
well, (and I’m not sure why you have this particular chip on your shoulder) nothing succeeds like success. It is not a tautology it is not some sort of intellectual cop out.
Like the old joke goes; “I don’t have to out run the Tiger. I just have to out run you.”
No, it would never say it was better to happen one way or another
It would just say that’s the way it happened.
Science isn’t philosophy or theology. It isn’t looking for deeper meaning. It is just trying to describe what happened. If that leaves you cold and empty fine; that’s why we have priests and poets.
Don’t blame evolution for sticking to its P&Qs
Deterministic not determined
Once again in all charity, if you don’t know the difference between deterministic and random processes then you really shouldn’t be going on and on about “random” this and “random” that
You stated that all existing species were perfect. I merely pointed out that there many less than perfect adaptations. The panda can both be more successful than its departed forbearers and not quite perfect. No contradiction at all. All the panda has to be is good enough.
As I stated above we can make some generalizations about the factors for success based on the historical record. The panda is large, exists in relatively low numbers, is slow to reproduce, and has a limited range and specialized diet. Each on of those factors is a liability and it should be fairly obvious that all of them combined are a potential problem
Under those circumstances yes, of course. What do you think?
Remember, that there is no one definition as to better adapted. That is why species split. Different populations diverge differently. And conditions constantly change so what is “better” constantly changes.
S
steveandersen
Guest
continued
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
mike182d:
yeah…so
You’re funning with me again, aren’t you?
I don’t quite follow you there. Once again many of the processes are deterministic not arbitrary. As for meaning….you’ll need to look elsewhere
There could have been…but there wasn’t. Evolution was derived to provide a mechanism for the fact of common decent and the data shows that all modern land vertebrates are descendant from lobe fish.
It doesn’t matter if there is one or two items in common. The modern mustang has components that are completely different and share no lineage or precursors with the earlier version. It would be like a tribe of humans showing up with bug eyes…can’t happen without falsifying the theory
R
rossum
Guest
This is incorrect. While prediction is not always possible, it is possible in some cases. I can predict that on average an eagle born with a mutation that renders it blind will not have as much reproductive success as an eagle without that mutation. If you want a real example I can predict that on average people with the sickle cell anemia mutation will have a greater reproductive success than those without it in malarial areas. Conversely in non-malarial areas those with the mutation will have less average reproductive success than those without it.
Since the effect of a mutation is dependant on the environment, as with sickle cell anemia, in order to predict the effect of a mutation it is necessary to predict all relevant factors in the environment. If there are more than a few relevant factors then there will be so much scope for error in the prediction that it becomes effectively useless.
Despite this, practical prediction is possible. Scientists have predicted that the current bird flu virus is likely to evolve so that it can pass directly from human to human. That is an evolutionary prediction that is being taken very seriously by governments worldwide. Your source was wrong when it said that there was “no practical application”.
There is no guarantee that any particular instance of a beneficial mutation will survive. I was careful above to say “on average”. Beneficial mutations increase the average chances of reproduction, they do not guarantee reproduction. The advantage may be very small, but over many generations the effect is magnified like compound interest.
Remember also that the same mutation can appear more than once. The average human has about 100 mutations: DNA that differs from both parents. Only about five of these are expressed, the rest are in non-coding DNA. Multiply those five mutations by the population of the world and it is practically a certainty that there are duplicates. Especially since some sites in the genome are more prone to mutation than others.
Because they are all descended from the first land vertebrate species. That first land vertebrate, something like Acanthostega, was descended from a lobe-fin fish that was laterally symmetric with four lobed fins. There are plenty of land animals that do not follow this pattern; we call them insects, molluscs, arachnids etc. The basis of biological classification is that animals that follow the same pattern are grouped together.
There is one phylogeny because all current life on earth is descended from a single ancestor. There could be more than one if life derived from more than one ancestor. If we find life on other planets then it will very probably form a separate phylogeny.
Yes we do, I just told you. Your source for this information was incorrect. I suggest that you find a more reliable source since this one has let you down twice in one post.
rossum
M
Malachi4U
Guest
I record Father Groeschel’s show on my DISHTV PVR weekly. I am watching him now from the show I recorded that he did today at 1am. Father Groeschel just said that the scientists using DNA have proven that ALL mankind came from a common couple, Adam and Eve. What a coincidence that he said this then I read you post!
I watch Father Groeschel regularly. I have never seen him say anything like what you seem to have heard. Do you recall which episode it was or a date? Did you hear what he said in context?
Father Groeschel has an email address you can write to him at and I suggest you write him - not us who do not know what he said. I am sure he will respond to you if you make it a quick question. He sometimes gives his email address on his show.
I suggest you watch him some more and see if perhaps you just heard something out of context? Perhaps he said it poorly and you need to write him so he can clarify what he meant to say?
One time I was teaching my children their religious education at home (I hope all of you teach you kids your Faith at home, many Catholics don’t). I don’t recall the subject I was teaching but we were talking about death and judgment. My wife just happened to hear what I said and she commented, “Do you believe in soul sleep?” Of course I said, “NO!” She then said, “Then why are you teaching our kids 'soul sleep?” Of course she continued, “So, what did you just say? Think about it?” I stopped teaching my children for the night. Thought about what I said and researched the subject of ‘soul sleep’ some more. The next night I told my children I informed I was wrong and had taught them ‘soul sleep’ when in fact ‘soul sleep’ is against Christianity. The point is, I did not believe in ‘soul sleep’ and knew it was wrong but the way I worded the teaching to my children would seem to have supported that evil heresy. I just worded what I was teaching poorly and I am now better about what I say - I hope?
By the way, all of us are sinners and so is Father Groeschel. We all make mistakes and non of us is perfect. Do you join an Islamic church because one priest molests a child? Do you join a Protestant mega-Church (closed on Christmas of course ) because your local parish priest says that suicide could be justified if an individual was terminally ill and in great pain and will die in a day or two anyway? Throw Father Groeschel a bone here. Write to him and have him explain what he said. Watch his show and see if perhaps he has other good things to say and just flubbed up on one point. Perhaps you can contact EWTN and do a show that puts evolution and Scripture into correct context? Perhaps you can teach Father Groeschel the correct interpretation on this subject if he is in error?
JMJ
I watch Father Groeschel regularly. I have never seen him say anything like what you seem to have heard. Do you recall which episode it was or a date? Did you hear what he said in context?
Father Groeschel has an email address you can write to him at and I suggest you write him - not us who do not know what he said. I am sure he will respond to you if you make it a quick question. He sometimes gives his email address on his show.
I suggest you watch him some more and see if perhaps you just heard something out of context? Perhaps he said it poorly and you need to write him so he can clarify what he meant to say?
One time I was teaching my children their religious education at home (I hope all of you teach you kids your Faith at home, many Catholics don’t). I don’t recall the subject I was teaching but we were talking about death and judgment. My wife just happened to hear what I said and she commented, “Do you believe in soul sleep?” Of course I said, “NO!” She then said, “Then why are you teaching our kids 'soul sleep?” Of course she continued, “So, what did you just say? Think about it?” I stopped teaching my children for the night. Thought about what I said and researched the subject of ‘soul sleep’ some more. The next night I told my children I informed I was wrong and had taught them ‘soul sleep’ when in fact ‘soul sleep’ is against Christianity. The point is, I did not believe in ‘soul sleep’ and knew it was wrong but the way I worded the teaching to my children would seem to have supported that evil heresy. I just worded what I was teaching poorly and I am now better about what I say - I hope?
By the way, all of us are sinners and so is Father Groeschel. We all make mistakes and non of us is perfect. Do you join an Islamic church because one priest molests a child? Do you join a Protestant mega-Church (closed on Christmas of course
) because your local parish priest says that suicide could be justified if an individual was terminally ill and in great pain and will die in a day or two anyway? Throw Father Groeschel a bone here. Write to him and have him explain what he said. Watch his show and see if perhaps he has other good things to say and just flubbed up on one point. Perhaps you can contact EWTN and do a show that puts evolution and Scripture into correct context? Perhaps you can teach Father Groeschel the correct interpretation on this subject if he is in error?JMJ
S
Subrosa
Guest
- Status